Ellen Kratz wrote:
> I was so disapointed by the conversation that I thought of contacting
> King Charles himself.However Dave H.is one of their top guys so that
> must be the way they want it.
> I ordered the O ring from Moss,and paid their five dollar minimum
> charge,but felt better about it.
> TRF is my last resort.
> Next I`ll rant about the time I bought a three hundred dollar order,only
> to recieve a flyer anouncing twenty percent off sale the day my parts
> arrived at the old price.I called.Guess how far I got on that one ??
> But that`s another story.
To Rick, and all...
I've read most or all of the posts regarding some of the shipping and
perceived service changes going on at TRF and elsewhere, and would only
add these comments. Some folks have tried to explain why shipping
charges are as they are. Some have gotten annoyed by excessive shipping
on small items. Some have tried to make sense of it all by saying costs
must be contained in any way possible in a competitive environment.
As idle comment, I would say, generally, that most of the complaints
about shipping, for parts from Vicky Brit or TRF or elsewhere are
related to current policy as opposed to prior policies. Yes, some
companies may feel that shipping costs are eating into their profit
margins, and they must compensate. Some here defend that, others think
that common sense ought to dictate customer service policy, especially
as related to shipping charges, which are above and beyond the actual
price of the part.
I'm of two minds about shipping costs. I respect the views of those who
say many don't understand that people's time is involved in shipping
parts, and also, I understand that not many people understand that $5
shipping for $3 parts seems excessive, especially when those parts are
delivered by USPS, at generally longer delay, and at much lower shipping
cost to the supplier.
I, for one, do not believe that the argument that shipping costs pay for
personnel to pick, pack and ship a part. They are part of the general
payroll, which is already figured into the overhead. After all, they are
integral to supplying the part, whether it be for aircraft, or for cars.
Those personnel costs are known and are amortized annually as part of
the cost of doing business. After all, shipping those parts depends upon
demand, rather than subsidizing the employees meeting those shipping
demands. The cost of their availability for that service is known and
predictable to the parts supplier and is already generally figured into
the cost of the part, as a cost of doing business for that part.
At the same time, I realize that those personnel will usually adhere to
company policy and will not take it upon themselves to simply pop a
fifty-cent part into an envelope with a 33-cent stamp, as someone
suggested would be correct to do.
Truthfully, what is behind the complaints about shipping costs from the
major three is that added burden on top of the price of the part itself.
As collectors, or fans, of a breed no longer produced, we pay
considerably higher prices for equipment which, if we were buying for a
five-year-old domestic truck, would be cheaper. So, excessive shipping
charges are, to some, akin to insult after injury.
Perhaps, a supplier should be considered on the following criteria:
1) Does that supplier have essential items in stock when ordered? One
can wait for that set of Minilite repros, if the steel wheels are intact
and operable, but, is that rotor or condenser or distributor cap
immediately available for shipment? If so, that should generally count
in their favor.
2) Are the prices from the supplier in close proximity to other
suppliers, i.e., are they competitive, not only with each other, but
also with local sources?
3) Are their shipping and _handling_ costs reasonable? Excessive costs,
compared to other sources, would indicate they are padding the cost of
their parts with highly profitable shipping and handling fees.
4) When calling the supplier, are reasonable explanations given for
seemingly excessive handling fees? If not, or if a surly demeanor is
encountered, this may be an indication of a firm which won't resolve
other customer service issues promptly and satisfactorily. Most
importantly, if the fees for handling and shipping seem excessive, is
the supplier willing to consider alternative means at lower cost? If
not, and another supplier will consider such, then it is up to the buyer
to determine that the same part from another supplier might be a better
deal, adding in the shipping and handling costs.
All in all, I don't think discussion of this subject is at all
inappropriate--one supplier may think that altering shipping means or
procedures is a way to cut costs, and other suppliers, seeing that
trend, may jump on the bandwagon. Expressing displeasure at a supplier's
adverse change in policy is surely the best way to get the attention of
the supplier. If a formerly loyal customer takes his or her business
elsewhere, the seller loses not only the perceived advantage in shipping
pricing, but the profit on the part, as well.
It's okay to let the supplier know you're unhappy with their policy
changes. It keeps the suppliers competitive. However, if after placing
an order with them, and the supplier has clearly stated those policy
changes, it's bad form to complain after the fact. In essence, when one
makes an order with a supplier, one accepts the current terms of
purchase, including current shipping costs. Complaining to them about
those policies, in general, however, is not bad practice. Trying to
attach those complaints to a specific order, under agreed-to terms will
probably fall on deaf ears.
What is of considerable concern to everyone here is the quality of the
parts received and at what price--that ought to be of primary
concern--shipping costs, over the broadest set of purchases, are of
minimal cost. TRF has many repro parts made in Taiwan, and may have some
now made in mainland China. _If_ the price of such parts is high, _and_
the quality low, that's considerable cause for complaint.
With regard to the complaints of those who want their parts much more
quickly than the USPS can provide, I can only ask this question: is the
car your daily transportation? If it is, getting the part quickly is
important. I can agree with that, because my Triumph is my daily
transportation. If you are a sometime driver, a part-time exhibitor, and
complain of slow delivery by USPS, but do not use the car for daily
transportation, you have the time to either wait for the post office, or
you have time to negotiate better shipping terms from your chosen
supplier, if you choose to do so.
Finally, for what it's worth, good service is not defined solely by such
matters as changes in shipping costs, especially in this market. A lot
of people here like and enjoy Triumphs, but may not be experts with the
cars or with mechanical skills in general. No small number of folks on
this list may call a supplier and want to buy a part which the
supplier's representative may not recommend, for good reason, thereby
saving the customer much money in non-returnable items. A bad supplier
would say, "sure, how many do you want?"
Accessibility of information is important, and knowing what the supplier
will or will not sell is important. For example, I need TR6 parts for
the TR6 engine in my GT6. Moss will not sell GT6 parts, but, because
I've ordered TR6 parts from them, are happy to continue to send me TR6
catalogs, even though they may not know my application. Vicky Brit sends
me GT6 catalogs, even though I may not ever order all of the engine
parts for that car. TRF, on the other hand, won't send me a GT6 catalog
at all, even after spending $50 with them at the `97 VTR in order to get
on their catalog mailing list--and I can't buy parts from them if they
won't offer them to me.
Further, it's worth considering what the company will do for you _after_
you've discovered a problem with what they've sold you. That's worth,
sometimes, far more than the mere shipping. I went brain-dead one
evening, and when ordering new wheel studs along with a lot of other
items from Vicky Brit, read the wrong number in the catalog and ordered
TR4 studs for the GT6. A couple of months later, about the time the rest
of the order arrived, I realized my error, called them, and asked if I
could exchange them. Of course, send them back, was the answer. I'd
ordered the wrong part, to the tune of $40. They could have said, "tough
luck," but didn't. That, too, is part of good customer service.
Shipping adds to the cost of parts, no question. And, egregious attempts
to extract easy big money from us in that way ought to be met with
notification to the vendor that it's not an acceptable policy and we can
and will do business elsewhere. But, a few bucks here and there ought
not create histrionics--as long as the company, in all other respects,
honors the customer and gives otherwise good service. There's nothing
wrong in keeping these guys honest... and telling them that their
policies with regard to shipping haven't endeared them to us all. <g>
That might cause them to rethink those policies as part of a larger
strategy to maintain or improve their market share.
Cheers, all.
|